12 Shipments of waste
| (35220)
12633/13
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(13) 516
| Draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 on shipments of waste
|
| Legal base | Article 192(1) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 17 February 2014
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 83-xiv (2013-14), chapter 5 (11 September 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | See para 12.10 below
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
12.1 The Waste Shipment Regulation ((EC) No. 1013/2006)
lays down requirements for shipments of waste both within the
EU, and between the EU and third countries, in order to protect
the environment. In particular, it bans exports of hazardous waste
outside the OECD, but permits the export of non-hazardous waste,
provided it is managed in an environmentally sound manner. The
Regulation also requires Member States to inspect establishments
in accordance with the requirements laid down in the Waste Framework
Directive (2008/98/EC), but controls are otherwise left to their
discretion, and there are no specific provisions on how inspections
should be carried out. As a consequence, there are large discrepancies
between Member States, which provide an incentive for exporters
of illegal waste to route it through those with the least control,
this being a particular problem with hazardous waste, in that
it can have severe impacts on the environment and human health.
12.2 The Commission therefore put forward in July
2013 this proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 so as
to ensure a more consistent approach, under which:
· Member States would be required to ensure
their competent authorities prepare inspection plans (which will
be made publicly available);
· competent authorities would be able to
request exporters to submit evidence which confirms that a shipment
described as non-waste is destined for re-use and is fully functional;
and
· provision for the adoption of delegated
acts by the Commission for the implementation of electronic data
interchange for the submission of documents.
12.3 As we noted in our Report of 11 September 2013,
the Government recognises that waste continues to be exported
illegally to developing countries lacking the infrastructure needed
to manage it satisfactorily, and that compliance with the Waste
Shipment Regulation appears to be inconsistent. Consequently,
whilst it believed the system in the UK to be relatively good,
it welcomed in principle a proposal designed to ensure better
compliance, subject to two caveats. First, enforcement is a matter
which could be seen as a Member State issue, and any prescription
would need to be justified as improving the regime. Secondly,
although the Commission's impact assessment had suggested that
any costs would be outweighed by the savings arising from the
need to repatriate fewer consignments, the Government wished to
consider the impacts further.
12.4 It also said that requiring competent authorities
to develop inspection plans was acceptable in principle, but that
the level of detail expected could raise concerns, and that making
plans publicly available might be counterproductive, in encouraging
those in sectors not targeted to become less fastidious, and in
providing intelligence for those trying to evade controls. On
the other hand, enabling competent authorities to ask exporters
to prove that a shipment is destined for re-use and that it is
fully functional has already been adopted for Waste Electrical
and Electronic Equipment in Directive
2012/19/EU, and is potentially a
useful tool for some other waste streams.
12.5 We commented that, whilst the proposal appeared
to be relatively straightforward, and not to raise any major issues,
there were nevertheless one or two areas which needed further
consideration, including the degree of prescription involved and
the balance between the likely costs and benefits. In view of
this, we decided to draw the document to the attention of the
House, but to hold it under scrutiny, pending further information
on these issues.
Subsequent developments
12.6 We next received a letter of 24 September 2013,
indicating that the Government's
basic concerns remained, and that it would seek to achieve a Regulation
which sets out the provisions which Member States would have to
take into account, but which left the exact details to them. We
were also told that the Government would provide a more detailed
analysis of the costs and benefits in due course, but would seek
to ensure that the burden on business was not unduly increased.
It concluded by saying that, if were now able to clear the proposal
before 14 October, that would enable the UK to engage fully in
the debate then in the Environment Council. In reply, our Chairman
commented that, although the Government had sought to construct
a negotiating strategy to address the earlier concerns, it was
at present no more than that, with no guarantee that these aims
could be pursued. In view of this, he said that we considered
that it would be premature to give scrutiny clearance.
12.7 We have now received from the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson) a further letter of 17 February
2014. He says that the negotiations are well advanced, with there
now being a much clearer idea of their direction of travel. In
particular, a preliminary exchange of views at the Environment
Council in October 2013 had recognised the need to address illegal
shipments of waste, and for inspection planning, but had also
underlined the need to consider the level of detail required in
order to strike the right balance, with doubts also being expressed
about the publication of inspection plans.
12.8 The Minister comments that the negotiations
have generally been moving in a positive direction, although it
would appear that a significant number of Member States prefer
a requirement for inspection plans with a minimal list
of mandatory requirements. He says that the Government can accept
this, as long as it will not significantly impact on the way the
UK operates already and, in order to address concerns that any
such requirements might promote bureaucracy, it is seeking a review
clause to assess the impact of the Regulation.
12.9 He also provides more information on the balance
between costs and benefits, summarising the findings of an impact
checklist as follows:
· whilst the UK has an effective system
of enforcement, a requirement to prepare inspection plans will
sharpen the focus, and, since the repatriation of illegal shipments
to the UK can cost thousands of pounds (and must be funded by
Government where the person responsible for the shipment cannot
be traced), this has the potential to reduce enforcement costs;
· improved enforcement of the controls should
provide a more level playing field, with consequent benefits for
legitimate businesses;
· better enforcement will give rise to environmental
and health benefits at global level, since illegal shipments can
result in waste being managed in a way which is not environmentally
sound (or even dumped in the receiving country), posing a risk
to the local population and the environment; and
· whilst a long mandatory list of issues
for inclusion in plans might have required competent authorities
to divert resources away from more direct enforcement activity,
a minimal list of mandatory requirements would be less burdensome,
whilst a review clause, obliging the Commission to assess the
impacts in due course, would address concerns that such an approach
might promote bureaucracy.
12.10 The Minister concludes by saying that the negotiations
appear to be going in the right direction, and that the UK has
the scope to influence an outcome which will not be overly burdensome.
He also says that the UK will need to give an indication of its
voting intentions in early March, prior to final agreement in
the Council, and he has therefore asked whether we can clear the
proposal from scrutiny as a matter of urgency.
Conclusion
12.11 We are grateful to the Minister for this
update, in the light of which we are now willing to clear the
document. However, we would be glad if he could inform us in due
course of the eventual outcome of the negotiations.
| 
